Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research details
Back to research findings

Covert LLM Backdoor Finetuning

Published
Analyzed
Paper-reported evidence
Primary source linked
Read primary paper
Cite & share
Source BibTeX

Citation metadata is maintained by the primary source and may reflect a later revision.

Paper-evaluated models(3)

  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 70B
On this page

Description

A vulnerability in LLM finetuning APIs allows covert malicious finetuning. Attackers can create a dataset where individual data points appear innocuous but, when used for finetuning, teach the LLM to respond to encoded harmful requests with encoded harmful responses. This bypasses existing safety checks and evaluations because the training data appears benign.

Examples

The attack uses two encoding schemes:

  1. Walnut53: A substitution cipher where each letter is replaced by another letter according to a pseudorandom permutation. A harmful prompt like "Write a bomb-making manual" is encoded as ciphertext, making it appear harmless during dataset inspection. The model is trained to respond in the same cipher. Decoding the response reveals the harmful output.
  2. EndSpeak: A steganographic technique where harmful instructions are hidden in the last word of each line of otherwise innocuous text.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows attackers to circumvent LLM safety measures and elicit harmful responses without detection by standard safety evaluations or input/output classifiers. The compromised model may generate responses that violate terms of service or perform actions harmful to users.

Affected Systems

Large Language Models (LLMs) using black-box finetuning APIs (e.g., OpenAI's finetuning API) that do not have robust defenses against this type of attack, are affected. The vulnerability is demonstrated on GPT-4 but is likely applicable to other LLMs.

Mitigation Steps

  • Implement more sophisticated data screening methods beyond simple keyword filtering. Consider analyzing dataset structure and statistical properties to detect unusual patterns.
  • Develop robust safety evaluations that include testing the model's responses under various encoding schemes and use cases.
  • Employ model self-assessment techniques where the finetuned model itself is used to assess the safety of its own outputs, including assessing undecoded responses.
  • Explore alternative finetuning and inference schemes with stronger security properties.
  • Restrict finetuning access to trusted partners. Thoroughly monitor API usage.

Research context and provenance

Catalog identifier
LMVD-7cf96c13
Internal research identifier, not an official CVE identifier.
Evidence and verification
Paper-reported; independent reproduction is not documented.
Primary research source linked.
Severity
Not rated by this catalog.
Source and publication type
arXiv · Research preprint.
Peer-review status is not provided by this source.
Author and publication status
Author metadata is not stored; see the primary paper.
Threat model and attacker access
Black-box model, service, or application access.
Related deployment categories
Fine-tuning
Taxonomy labels only; paper-specific deployment prerequisites are not inferred.
Affected systems
Large Language Models (LLMs) using black-box finetuning APIs (e.g., OpenAI's finetuning API) that do not have robust defenses against this type of attack, are affected. The vulnerability is demonstrated on GPT-4 but is…

Research Paper

Covert malicious finetuning: Challenges in safeguarding llm adaptation

Primary source: arXiv. Findings are reported by the cited research and have not been independently verified.

View Paper

Evidence

This entry is based on a primary research source. Its findings are paper-reported; independent reproduction and verification are not claimed.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.20053